electroporation-based applications in biotechnologylbk.electroporation.net/pdfs/tibt2015.pdf ·...
TRANSCRIPT
Electroporation-based applications inbiotechnologyTadej Kotnik1, Wolfgang Frey2, Martin Sack2, Sasa Haberl Meglic1, Matjaz Peterka3,and Damijan Miklavcic1
1 Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Trzaska 25, 1000 Ljubljana,
Slovenia2 Institute for Pulsed Power and Microwave Technology, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Hermann-v-Helmholtz-Platz 1,
76344 Eggenstein-Leopoldshafen, Germany3 Instrumentation and Process Control, Centre of Excellence for Biosensors, Tovarniska cesta 26, 5270 Ajdovscina, Slovenia
Review
Electroporation is already an established technique inseveral areas of medicine, but many of its biotechnolog-ical applications have only started to emerge; we reviewhere some of the most promising. We outline electropo-ration as a phenomenon and then proceed to applica-tions, first outlining the best established – the use ofreversible electroporation for heritable genetic modifi-cation of microorganisms (electrotransformation), andthen explore recent advances in applying electropora-tion for inactivation of microorganisms, extraction ofbiomolecules, and fast drying of biomass. Althoughthese applications often aim to upscale to the industrialand/or clinical level, we also outline some importantchip-scale applications of electroporation. We concludeour review with a discussion of the main challenges andfuture perspectives.
The phenomenon of electroporationExposure of biological membranes to a sufficiently highelectric field leads to a rapid and large increase of theirelectric conductivity and permeability. This effect – mem-brane electroporation – can be either reversible or irrevers-ible, and was first reported for excitable cells in 1958 [1], fornonexcitable cells in 1967 [2], for planar lipid bilayers in1979 [3], and for lipid vesicles in 1981 [4].
Molecular level
Both theoretical considerations [5] and molecular dynam-ics simulations [6] imply that electroporation is initiated bypenetration of water molecules into the lipid bilayer of themembrane, causing reorientation of the adjacent lipidswith their polar head groups toward these water mole-cules. The pores formed in the cell plasma membraneprovide a pathway for transport of a wide range of mole-cules, including DNA, into and out of the cell. Electropora-tion is a physical phenomenon, and can as such occur in thelipid bilayer of the membranes of all prokaryotic andeukaryotic cells.
0167-7799/
� 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.06.002
Corresponding author: Miklavcic, D. ([email protected]).
480 Trends in Biotechnology, August 2015, Vol. 33, No. 8
Membrane level
Pore formation is governed by statistical thermodynamics[5,7], and it is therefore not strictly a threshold event in thesense that pores only form in electric fields that exceed acertain value. Nonetheless, electroporation-mediatedtransport across the membrane correlates strongly withthe transmembrane voltage induced by the external elec-tric field, which until the onset of electroporation is pro-portional to this field [8] and then decreases [9]. There arefour general contiguous ranges of electric field strength(Figure 1), each characterized by typical properties of thepores formed and/or transport through them [10]. In therange of no detectable electroporation, the pores, even ifformed, are too small and short-lived for measurable trans-port. In the range of reversible electroporation, poresprovide a temporary pathway for transport, but after theelectric pulse they gradually reseal, the transport ceases,and most cells retain their viability. In the range of non-thermal irreversible electroporation, most pores either donot reseal, or reseal too slowly to preserve cell viability;cells thus gradually disintegrate and release their con-tents, yet these contents are not thermally damaged. Fi-nally, in the range of irreversible electroporation withthermal damage, electric current causes a temperatureincrease sufficient to cause thermal damage to the releasedmolecules (protein denaturation above �50 8C, DNA melt-ing above �70 8C).
The four ranges partly overlap because pore formation isstochastic and cells generally vary in size and/or orienta-tion with respect to the field. The range boundaries dependon the cell type and are affected by the properties of themedium in which the cells are exposed – its electricalconductivity, osmolarity, and the solutes it contains[11,12]. As the exposure duration (i.e., electric pulselength) increases, the transitions between adjacent regionsoccur at lower fields (Figure 1A). The range of detectableporation, however, has an asymptotic lower bound – belowa certain field strength, no transmembrane transport isdetected no matter how long the applied pulses [13,14].
The electroporation-induced pores have not yet beenvisualized directly; with radii of at most several nan-ometers, they are too small for optical microscopes andtoo unstable – because the lipid bilayer is fluid – forthe preprocessing required for electron microscopy of soft
0
0.1
1
1 2 3 4 50
Expo
sure
dur
a�on
[ms]
10–4
10–3
10–2
10 20 30 40 50
10–5
(A)
10
Frac
�on
of e
xpos
ed c
ells
[%]
0
100
80
60
40
20
0 10 15 20 25 305
(B)
No detectablepora�on
Key:
Reversiblepora�on
Non-thermalirreversible pora�on
Irreversible pora�onand thermal damage
Electric field strength [kV/cm]
Electric field strength [kV/cm]
TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure 1. Membrane poration and thermal effects during exposure of cells to an
electric field. The values are for typical bacteria in 0.25 M sucrose. (A) Ranges of no
detectable poration, reversible poration, irreversible poration, and thermal
damage as functions of field strength and duration. (B) Fractions of non-porated,
reversibly porated, irreversibly porated, and thermally damaged cells as functions
of field strength, for a 10 ms exposure time [i.e., the plot in panel (B) traces these
fractions along the dashed line segment in panel (A)]. Note that the axes are
logarithmic in (A) and linear in (B). Adapted, with permission from [10].
(A)
(B)
TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure 2. Electroporation of bacteria. Scanning electron micrographs show
Lactobacillus casei bacteria before (A) and after (B) exposure to an electric field
pulse of 7.5 kV/cm amplitude and 4 ms duration. Reprinted, with permission from
[16]. Scale bar, 2 mm.
Review Trends in Biotechnology August 2015, Vol. 33, No. 8
matter, and early reports of volcano-shaped pores tens ofnanometers in size are now known to have been artifacts ofsuch preprocessing [15]. By contrast, the pores in the cellwall, particularly in the peptidoglycan wall of Gram-posi-tive bacteria, are much more stable and can be visualizedunder an electron microscope [16] (Figure 2).
Tissue level
Exposure to a sufficiently strong electric field also causeselectroporation in multicellular tissues, enhancing trans-port into or out of their constitutive cells. Uniform electro-poration is difficult to obtain in tissues because theygenerally consist of diversely shaped cells, various celltypes (including vascularization), and cells connected bygap junctions, resulting in spatially varying and oftenanisotropic electrical properties. Thus, even if a tissue is
exposed to a homogeneous external electric field, inside thetissue the field is distributed highly nonhomogeneously,and some cells are almost unavoidably electroporated moreintensely than others [17,18].
To reduce field nonhomogeneity the electric field deliv-ery to a tissue must be carefully designed; a numericalmodel of the tissue is built, taking into account its particu-lar structure; the number, size, shape, and positioning ofthe electrodes are then iteratively optimized until suffi-cient field homogeneity is achieved inside the tissue or in asub tissue of interest, for example, a tumor inside a largertissue such as the liver [19].
Once the tissue cells are electroporated, the electricconductivity and dielectric permittivity of the tissuechange, affecting the electric field distribution [20]. Partic-ularly when more than one electroporating pulse is deliv-ered, these dynamic changes must also be considered foroptimal results. In such applications, numerical modelingis complemented by real-time measurements of tissueconductivity acquired with the electrodes that are alsoused for electroporation, allowing subsequent pulses tobe adapted to the detected increase of conductivity reflect-ing the extent of electroporation [21].
While electroporation is already an established tech-nique in several areas of medicine, many of its biotechno-logical applications have only started to emerge. There arefour general types of such applications (Box 1), and wedescribe each of them in more detail.
481
Box 1. Applications of electroporation in biotechnology
Electroporation both allows exogenous molecules to be introduced
into cells and endogenous molecules to be extracted from within the
cells, resulting in four general areas of biotechnological exploitation
(Figure I). In electrotransformation, exogenous DNA is introduced by
means of reversible electroporation, the foreign genes are expressed
in their new host cells and they are inherited upon cell division; this
can turn the host microorganisms into ‘factories’ of biomolecules,
adapt them to a new environment, or serve to study the role of
individual genes. In electroporation-based inactivation, microorgan-
isms are exposed to electric field pulses strong and long enough to
inhibit their activity, including their division, growth, and synthesis of
pathogenic substances. This method avoids contamination and is
particularly promising in food preservation where radiation and
chemicals must be avoided for the obvious reasons, while heating
degrades both nutrients and taste, decreasing the value of food. In
electroextraction, either microorganisms or multicellular tissues are
electroporated to the extent required to release the biomolecules of
interest; in some cases, it is also achievable with reversible electro-
poration and, in most cases, it is important to limit electroporation to
levels that avoid rapid decomposition of the exposed cells and thus
the formation of debris contaminating the extract. Finally, when used
for facilitating water release from tissues, electroporation is useful in
electroporative biomass drying, accelerating the drying process,
allowing heating to be reduced or avoided, and often also reducing
the energy requirements.
Na�veproteins
Na�ve lipids
Na�veDNA
Mul�cellular �ssue
ForeignDNA
Electricpulse
Expression ofna�ve genes
Expression ofa foreign gene
Gene�ctransforma�on
Extrac�onand/or inac�va�on
Extrac�on
Drying
TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure I. Applications of electroporation in biotechnology.
Review Trends in Biotechnology August 2015, Vol. 33, No. 8
Genetic transformation of microorganismsAlthough some microorganisms can spontaneously trans-form – take up foreign (heterologous) genes, express andreplicate them, and pass them on upon division – theefficiency is often low, and there is ample motivation forcontrolled artificial transformation. Many approacheshave been attempted, ranging from chemical and mechan-ical to thermal, but since the mid-1980s transformation
482
based on electroporation (electrotransformation) has pre-vailed because it is more efficient and is applicable to abroader range of bacteria [22].
In early 1990s electrotransformation was also shown tobe effective in archaea, unicellular algae (microalgae), andunicellular fungi (yeasts), although with some limitations.Halophilic archaea cannot tolerate NaCl concentrationsbelow 1 M, but in media of such salinity the electric fieldrequired for electroporation generates organism-damagingheating, hence electrotransformation may be unfeasible. Insome other archaea, despite attempts at optimization,researchers were unable to detect transformants [23],and recent studies imply that some archaeal lipids areindeed highly resistant to the reorientation required forpore formation, and this could hinder electrotransforma-tion [24,25]. In microalgae and yeasts, transformationefficiencies are generally lower than in bacteria and mostarchaea, but still sufficient for some applications.
To date, successful electrotransformation has beenreported for bacteria from at least 13 of the 29 currentlyrecognized taxonomic phyla, for archaea from at least twoof their five phyla, for microalgae from at least three oftheir six phyla, and for yeasts from both their phyla(Table 1).
Applications of electrotransformation
Production of biomolecules. Most frequently, electro-transformation is used for synthesis of foreign substances,including antigens, cytokines, enzymes, hormones, andtoxins, in host organisms ranging from bacteria to micro-algae and yeasts. New transgenic ‘factories’ of biomoleculesare emerging at a formidable rate; already in 1995, 4 yearsafter first electrotransformation-mediated transgenic pro-tein production in yeast, a review listed 22 such proteinsproduced in a single yeast species, and 15 in another [26].
Adaptation to diverse conditions. Some microorganismsperform useful functions, for example, probiotics in theintestine, or bioremediators of environmental pollutants,and transformation can adapt them to new antagonists orenvironments. Thus, the bacterium Deinococcus radiodur-ans is an efficient bioremediator of uranium, converting itfrom soluble hexavalent into the insoluble tetravalentstate, thus preventing leakage from nuclear wastestorages, but it cannot survive above 40 8C, which is oftenexceeded in high-density storages; electrotransfer of itsgenes encoding uranium chemistry into its thermophilicrelative Deinococcus geothermalis produced a strain con-verting uranium at temperatures up to 55 8C [27].
Basic research. Transfer of a gene into a simpler organismcan facilitate analysis of the properties and functions of theencoded protein, which may be obscured in the more-complex original organism. If the transgenic protein inter-acts with host genes or their expression, electrotransfor-mation can also be used to study the genes and proteins ofthe host organism. For example, in the bacterium Brachy-spira hyodysenteriae the flagella consist of two types ofproteins encoded by two genes, and transformation thatinhibited one gene resulted in thinner flagella (�20 insteadof �26 nm diameter) with reduced motility [28].
Table 1. A sample of successfully electrotransformedmicroorganisms
Phylum Species
Archaea
Crenarchaeota Metallosphera sedula, Sulfolobus
acidocaldarius, Sulfolobus islandicus,
Sulfolobus solfataricus
Euryarchaeota Methanococcus voltae, Pyrococcus furiosus
Bacteria
Actinobacteria Brevibacterium lactofermentum,
Corynebacterium diphtheriae, Mycobacterium
smegmatis,...
Bacteroidetes Bacteroides fragilis, Bacteroides uniformis,
Prevotella ruminicola,...
Chlamydiae Chlamydia psittaci, Chlamydia trachomatis
Chlorobi Chlorobium vibrioforme
Cyanobacteria Arthrospira platensis, Fremyella diplosiphon,
Synechococcus elongatus
Deinococcus-
Thermus
Deinococcus geothermalis, Thermus
thermophilus
Firmicutes Bacillus cereus, Clostridium perfringens,
Enterococcus faecalis, Lactobacillus casei,
Streptococcus pyogenes,...
Fusobacteria Fusobacterium nucleatum
Planctomycetes Planctomyces limnophilus
Proteobacteria Campylobacter jejuni, Escherichia coli,
Salmonella enterica, Sinorhizobium meliloti,
Yersinia pestis,...
Spirochaetes Borrelia burgdorferi, Serpulina hyodysenteriae
Tenericutes Mycoplasma pneumoniae
Thermotogae Thermotoga maritima
Unicellular algae (microalgae)
Chlorophyta Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, Chlorella
ellipsoidea, Chlorella vulgaris, Dunaliella
salina, Scenedesmus obliquus,...
Heterokontophyta Nannochloropsis sp. W2J3B, Phaeodactylum
tricornutum
Rhodophyta Cyanidioschyzon merolae
Unicellular fungi (yeasts)
Ascomycota Candida maltosa, Ogataea polymorpha, Pichia
pastoris, Saccharomyces cerevisiae,
Schizosaccharomyces pombe,...
Basidiomycota Cryptococcus neoformans, Pseudozyma
antarctica, Pseudozyma flocculosa
Review Trends in Biotechnology August 2015, Vol. 33, No. 8
Parameters affecting electrotransformation efficiency
Field strengths for optimal transformation efficiency rangefrom 1 to 20 kV/cm, and pulse durations from 1 to 30 ms; ingeneral, optimal values of these two parameters are thoseresulting in the highest extent of electroporation withoutsubstantial loss of viability. For a given microorganism andDNA molecule, the optimal values of these two parametersmust in general be determined empirically [22]. Otherfactors influencing electrotransformation efficiency arediscussed below.
Organism envelopes and growth phase. Transformationefficiency decreases with increasing thickness and numberof layers enveloping the DNA of the recipient [29]; thus,achievable efficiencies are highest for Gram-negative bac-teria (107–1010 transformants per mg DNA), lower forGram-positive bacteria and archaea owing to their thickercell wall (105–107), and even lower for microalgae andyeasts that have a nuclear membrane (104–107) or for
organisms that have an outer polysaccharide- or slime-capsule layer, such as some bacteria and archaea duringparticular growth phases (�104). Bacteria and archaea arethus optimally transformed in their exponential growthphase [30], in which the capsular synthesis rate decreases[31].
Organism size. Because the transmembrane voltage in-duced by exposure to a given field strength is proportionalto the size of the organism, the field required for electro-poration and thus transformation is larger for smallerorganisms; thus, optimal field strengths are generallyhigher for bacteria and archaea (5–20 kV/cm) than formicroalgae and yeasts (1–12 kV/cm).
DNA. Transformation efficiency is highest for supercoiledcircular double-stranded (ds) DNA, and increasingly lowerfor relaxed circular dsDNA, circular single-stranded (ss)DNA, linear dsDNA with homologous ends, and lineardsDNA with nonhomologous ends [32]. For DNA concen-trations from pg/ml up to mg/ml, transformation efficiencyis roughly constant, implying that within this range, andunder fixed experimental conditions, the transformationprobability for each organism is proportional to the sur-rounding DNA concentration [33].
Medium. Divalent cations (Ca2+, Mg2+) interact with DNA[34], and therefore they should generally be avoided.Hyperosmolarity increases the flow from the medium intothe organism, and thus generally improves transformationefficiency [35], but to a limited extent, because substantialinflux of salts has a detrimental effect on most organisms.Addition of an osmoprotectant into the medium can reducethis effect, thus further improving the transformationefficiency [36]. In yeast, electrotransformation efficiencycan be improved considerably by chemical pretreatment,for example, with lithium acetate and dithiothreitol [37], orwith thiol compounds [38].
Inactivation of microorganismsWastewater treatment
Inactivation of microorganisms by electroporation has al-ready been demonstrated in the 1960s and proved to beefficient for increasing the shelf-life of liquid food [39]; theuse of electroporation for microbial inactivation is oftentermed pulsed electric field (PEF) treatment.
Irreversible electroporation is suited for bacterial de-contamination of hospital wastewater, and also eradicatesantibiotic-resistant strains, thus limiting the spread ofsuch bacteria into the environment, which is of generalconcern nowadays [40]. Bacterial inactivation at an energyinput of �150 kJ/l can reduce the bacterial population byfour orders of magnitude with wastewater temperatureremaining below 70 8C, preserving the activity of nucleasesthat can thus degrade DNA upon its release from electro-porated microorganisms and prevent horizontal genetransfer [41]. Moreover, a combination of mild pre-heatingto 60 8C and subsequent electroporation has proved syner-gistic, leading to the reduction of the required treatmentenergy for efficient disinfection to �40 kJ/l [42]. This com-bination was also found to be effective for the inactivation
483
ProteinsMinerals
MineralsProteins
Pulsedelectric fieldTreatmentLipids
Microalgae biomass
Lipids
Lipids
Nutrient recyclingFood and feed
Thermochemicalconversion
Anaerobic diges�on
Solvent extrac�on
Biofuel applica�on
Valoriza�on routes:Aqueousfrac�on:
Aqueousfrac�on:
TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure 3. Pulsed electric field treatment of microalgae biomass exhibits
fractionating properties. After treatment, the aqueous fraction is released into
extracellular medium, whereas lipid droplets cannot pass the cell boundary owing
to their size [57]. This allows new processing route combinations for complete
microalgae biomass valorization. Proteins and minerals can therefore be recovered
before processing of the lipid-rich biomass.
Review Trends in Biotechnology August 2015, Vol. 33, No. 8
of Gram-positive strains that are harder to inactivate byelectroporation alone. Unlike disinfection with ultravioletlight, to which bacteria readily develop tolerance, it wasshown that disinfection with electroporation does not leadto bacteria developing tolerance or resistance to the treat-ment for at least 30 generations [43]. Upscaling to pilot-scale flow of 400 l/h demonstrated that electroporation as adisinfection technology is also efficient under high mass-flow conditions.
Nonthermal food pasteurization
Success of electroporation as a mechanism of microbialinactivation in foods strongly depends on several factors:electric field strength and duration, energy delivered, elec-tric properties of the treated food, as well as microbialcharacteristics, including shape, size, cell wall structureand composition, and growth conditions [44]. While yeastand bacterial cells are susceptible to electroporation treat-ment, bacterial spores are much more resistant to electri-cal treatment; therefore, applications of electroporation formicrobial inactivation largely aim at food pasteurizationrather than sterilization [45].
During the past two decades, electroporation as a meth-od of food preservation has found many applications, and avariety of microorganisms have effectively been inacti-vated in various liquid foods such as fruit and vegetablejuices, cider, beer, milk, and soups, and also in semisolidand solid food products [44–46].
In addition, synergistic effects between electroporationand other treatments, for example, nisin, acid, mild heat-ing, low temperature, or high pressure, have been demon-strated [47]. The approach of combining high pressure,ultraviolet light, and electric pulses also appears to holdpromise in the inactivation of bacterial spores for whicheach of these mechanisms separately often fails to achieveinactivation [48].
Extraction of biomoleculesUnicellular organisms
Microorganisms are being recognized as a potential sourceof diverse biomolecules for industry, pharmacy or medi-cine. Established processes to extract these biomoleculesinclude mechanical forces or chemicals, which can be det-rimental to the structure and/or integrity of extractedbiomolecules [49]. Furthermore, after total microorganismdisintegration, purification of targeted biomolecules fromcellular debris is needed, which is often costly, requiringadditional steps in the process. By contrast, extraction byelectroporation (electroextraction) is a fast, chemical-free,energy-saving technique, allows rapid microorganism dis-integration resulting in debris to be avoided, and is easilyupscalable.
Bacteria. Electroextraction of plasmid DNA (pDNA) waslong assumed to be inferior in efficiency to the standardextraction method of alkaline lysis, and was thus studiedprimarily for applications where a small yield suffices;single-pulse electroporation was thus demonstrated as afeasible but suboptimal method for direct pDNA transferfrom donor bacteria, from which DNA was electroextracted,into recipient bacteria which were electrotransformed
484
[50,51]. Nevertheless, it was recently shown that, withsufficient optimization, yields with pDNA electroextractioncan be comparable or even superior to alkaline lysis[52]. Electroextraction is also applicable for obtaining bac-terial proteins [53] and lipids [54]. For each type of molecule,selective size-specific extraction of molecules is generallyachievable by adjusting pulse parameters.
Microalgae. Microalgae are currently the most productivebiomass feedstock [55], providing ample motivation fordeveloping techniques of extraction of molecules frommicroalgae, both in batch [56] and flow systems[57,58]. The fractionating characteristics of electroextrac-tion and its high efficiency [59] can overcome currentprocessing hurdles [60,61], in particular for biofuel appli-cations [62,63] (Figure 3), and several companies nowutilize electroextraction from microalgae [64]. Electroex-traction has been applied to obtain microalgal RNA [65],proteins [66], and pigments [67].
Yeasts. Electroextraction from yeasts was first used fortransfer of their DNA into recipient bacteria [68]. Soonafterwards, extraction of proteins was described [69]. Abroad range of sizes of functional proteins can be electro-extracted, with the yield being dependent on electric fieldparameters and medium composition [70]. Protein electro-extraction was also demonstrated using reversible electro-poration, thus preserving yeast viability [71].
Multicellular organisms
Grape. Electroporation of crushed grapes enables fastprocessing without an adverse influence on taste becausethe temperature of the mash increases by at most several8C [72]; the crushed grapes are first pumped though theelectroporation chamber and are then stored for severalhours for extraction to proceed. Combining electroporationwith subsequent fermentation on grapeskins gives a moreintense color, while combining electroporation with subse-quent maceration yields an increased content of polyphe-nolic compounds in the wine [73]. For white wines, a lightercharacter of the wine is usually desirable, but forsome white grape varieties, electric pulses can be applied
Review Trends in Biotechnology August 2015, Vol. 33, No. 8
advantageously to achieve a more complete extraction anda more intense taste. Although electroporation alsoreleases more tanning substances, must and wine haveless acidity as a result of chemical buffering, resulting in aslightly smoother taste. More nitrogen available to theyeast in the must also helps to prevent the untypical agingnote of the wine [74].
Sugar beet. Electroporation of sugar beets enables con-siderable saving of energy. Conventionally, sugar beettissue is disintegrated thermally, typically at a tempera-ture of approximately 72 8C, to prepare the cossettes forsubsequent countercurrent extraction of the sugar. Treat-ment by pulsed electric fields (PEF) replaces thermaldisintegration by electroporation, with a required energyof �1–1.5 kWh per ton of sugar beet tissue [74]. Althoughsuch treatment can be performed at ambient temperature,in an industrial process the cossettes need to be kept afterthe exposure at a temperature of at least �60 8C to preventmesophilic bacteria from growing, and an inverse temper-ature profile can be applied advantageously during coun-tercurrent extraction by increasing the temperature from�60 8C to �80 8C, the temperature level for the evapora-tion stages after extraction. Electroporation-assisted ex-traction (Figure 4) results in a purer juice (because lesswater is required for extraction) and lower energy con-sumption during the evaporation stages.
Biomass dryingEfficient drying contributes significantly to energy savingsin electroporation-assisted sugar beet processing. Afterextraction, cossettes are pressed for additional juice re-moval and dried for use as animal feed. Combining expo-sure to high-voltage electric pulses with alkaline extractionresults in increased dry matter content of the cossettes –from 35% to 40% after pressing [74]. Adding lime milk tothe cossettes for alkaline extraction immediately after
Sugar beets Lime milk Water
Slicer
Cosse�esExtrac�on Pulp press
Cosse�e mixer
Thin juice Juice
Drying drum
Dried cosse�es
Pulsegenerator
PEF treatmentchamber
TRENDS in Biotechnology
Figure 4. Simplified processing steps for electroporation of sugar beets and
alkaline extraction. Washed sugar beets are sliced. The cossettes are immersed in
water and treated with a pulsed electric field (PEF) in an electrode system inside
the PEF treatment chamber. Liming is carried out inside a cossette mixer. The
cossettes are then transported through an extraction tower. Water is added and
sugar is extracted from the cossettes using a countercurrent extraction method.
Sugar is refined from the thin juice by the conventional processing steps of juice
evaporation, crystallization, and centrifugation. The extracted cossettes are
pressed to remove additional juice, and fed into a dryer. The dried cossettes are
used for the production of animal feed.
electroporation strengthens the cell walls and thus fostersextraction of juice during pressing. As a consequence, lessevaporation energy is required in subsequent high-tem-perature drying. In the conventional process of sugarproduction, lime milk is only used for purging the juice.The alkaline milieu associated with lime milk also reducescorrosion of steel tubes and increases their lifetime.
Dry biomass is also required in fuel production fromenergy crops. However, energy-efficient drying also allowsfresh green biomass to be used. As with sugar beet, dryingof green biomass might be carried out by combining elec-troporation, pressing, and drying in an oven. Electropora-tion-based treatment of green biomass can be performed inan electrified press; mechanical force is applied before andduring pulse application, establishing electric contact tothe electrodes through extracted juice without the need toadd water [75]. When drying the biomass in an oven,electroporated material dries 2–3-fold faster than non-porated material, not only because of decreased watercontent after pressing but also because of enhanced diffu-sion of the vapor as a result of cell disintegration [76].
Applications of electroporation in microfluidic systemsIn the applications described above we often aim to up-scale to the industrial and/or clinical level, but there is alsomotivation for applications of electroporation to sub mil-liliter samples, with the setups mostly based on micro-fluidic chambers (lab-on-a-chip devices) in which theelectrodes are often designed for multifunctionality, suchthat electroporation is combined with electrically basedanalytical processes such as dielectrophoresis, electropho-resis, electro-osmosis, and/or electrochemical analysis[77–79]. Applications can roughly be classified as de-scribed below.
Fractionation and/or selective inactivation
If electroporation is preceded by an electrically generatedforce acting differently on cells of different types and/orsizes, this allows heterogeneous samples of cells to befractionated and the desired fraction (type) of cells to beselectively electroporated; thus, dielectrophoresis wasused to separate leukemic cells from erythrocytes, withthe latter being subsequently irreversibly electroporated,leaving only the leukemic cells viable and available forfurther analysis [80]. If electroporation is followed by aselective electrically generated force, porated cells can beseparated from non-porated cells; thus, it was demonstrat-ed that irreversibly electroporated cells can be separatedfrom reversibly electroporated and non-porated cells bydielectrophoresis to more than 90% purity [81].
Extraction for analysis of intracellular contents
While DNA extracted by electroporation can be amplifiedin vitro, other biomolecules cannot, and highly sensitivemethods are needed for their detection and particularlyquantification. Microfluidic applications of electropora-tion are performed in suitably small volumes and, com-bined with on-chip analysis of the extracted molecules,they are able to rapidly and efficiently quantify biomole-cules even in very small samples. Thus, a microfluidiccombination of electroporation and mass spectrometry
485
Review Trends in Biotechnology August 2015, Vol. 33, No. 8
based on electrospray ionization was used to quantifyhemoglobin released from single erythrocytes [82].
Selective and/or enhanced transformation
Compared to classical electroporation cuvettes, the opti-mized channel geometry and microelectrode architectureof microfluidic devices result in less heating and electroly-sis, and consequently a higher survival rate of the electro-porated cells. Thus, it was recently reported thattransformation efficiency in thick-walled microalgae canbe improved by two orders of magnitude by electroporatingthem in an optimized microfluidic chamber rather than incuvettes [83].
Concluding remarks and future perspectivesDevices for large-scale electroporation comprise one ormore pulse generators connected to an electrode systemfor continuous pulse delivery to a mass flow; both must becarefully designed to achieve desired results [84]. Pulsegenerators equipped with semiconductor switches in seriesconfiguration [85] or in Marx configuration [86], low-scat-ter spark gap switches in self-breakdown mode [87], andspark gap switches triggered by a semiconductor-basedtrigger generator [88] are in use and under continuousdevelopment. For parallel configuration of Marx genera-tors, over-voltage triggering enables long-term operation ofspark gap switches without additional wear [89]. Pulsecircuits for rectangular, aperiodically damped, or stronglydamped oscillating pulse shapes are applied [90]. Theelectrode configuration of the treatment chamber is select-ed with respect to mechanical and electrical properties ofthe processed mass, and to the pulse circuit groundingscheme [74]. For energy-efficient operation by automaticadjustment of applied energy, measurements of the pro-cessed mass impedance can be used to assess the degree ofchanges caused by electroporation [91–93], but this ap-proach is of limited resolution in materials with highelectrical conductivity such as cell suspensions [94]; othermonitoring methods allowing real-time adjustments ofexposure conditions have therefore been explored.
Integration of electroporation into an existing produc-tion line or process must be carefully planned because thecost of required changes may differ considerably for differ-ent designs, and may even prove to be unacceptable. Whenrapid processing is required, introduction of a new stepinvolving electroporation may require adjusting othersteps of the process to achieve optimal results [95].
All these considerations point to a need for better knowl-edge and deeper understanding of electroporation as well asof its effects on the permeability of the cell membrane andcell wall, not only in cellular aggregates but also in intacttissues. Extraction, in particular for large molecules, isinherently limited by the presence of a cell wall, and thesame is true for fluid filtration in tissues [96]. Thus, forth-coming research efforts will largely focus on the influence ofthe cell wall and tissue structure, and on new processingcombinations for improving mass transport.
References1 Stampfli, R. (1958) Reversible electrical breakdown of the excitable
membrane of a Ranvier node. Ann. Acad. Bras. Cien. 30, 57–63
486
2 Sale, A.J.H. et al. (1967) Effects of high electric fields onmicroorganisms. I. Killing of bacteria and yeasts. Biochim. Biophys.Acta 148, 781–788
3 Benz, R. et al. (1979) Reversible electrical breakdown of lipid bilayermembranes: a charge-pulse relaxation study. J. Membr. Biol. 48,181–204
4 Teissie, J. and Tsong, T. (1981) Electric field induced transient pores inphospholipid bilayer vesicles. Biochemistry 20, 1548–1554
5 Weaver, J.C. and Chizmadzhev, Y.A. (1996) Theory of electroporation:a review. Bioelectrochem. Bioenerg. 41, 135–160
6 Bennett, W.F.D. et al. (2014) Atomistic simulations of pore formationand closure in lipid bilayers. Biophys. J. 106, 210–219
7 Sugar, I.P. and Neumann, E. (1984) Stochastic model for electric field-induced membrane pores: electroporation. Biophys. Chem. 19, 211–225
8 Kotnik, T. et al. (2010) Induced transmembrane voltage and itscorrelation with electroporation-mediated molecular transport. J.Membr. Biol. 236, 3–13
9 Flickinger, B. et al. (2010) Transmembrane potential measurements onplant cells using the voltage-sensitive dye ANNINE-6. Protoplasma247, 3–12
10 Yarmush, M.L. et al. (2014) Electroporation-based technologies formedicine: principles, applications, and challenges. Annu. Rev.Biomed. Eng. 16, 295–320
11 Pucihar, G. et al. (2001) The influence of medium conductivity onelectropermeabilization and survival of cells in vitro.Bioelectrochemistry 54, 107–115
12 Baldwin, W.H. et al. (2010) Membrane permeability and cell survivalafter nanosecond pulsed-electric-field exposure-significance ofexposure-media composition. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 38, 2948–2953
13 Kramar, P. et al. (2007) Determination of the lipid bilayer breakdownvoltage by means of linear rising signal. Bioelectrochemistry 70, 23–27
14 Pucihar, G. et al. (2011) Equivalent pulse parameters forelectroporation. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 58, 3279–3288
15 Spugnini, E.P. et al. (2007) Ultrastructural modifications of cellmembranes induced by electroporation on melanoma xenografts.Microsc. Res. Tech. 70, 1041–1050
16 Yeo, S.K. and Liong, M.T. (2012) Effect of electroporation on viabilityand bioconversion of isoflavones in mannitol–soymilk fermented bylactobacilli and bifidobacteria. J. Sci. Food Agric. 93, 396–409
17 Miklavcic, D. et al. (2000) A validated model of in vivo electric fielddistribution in tissues for electrochemotherapy and for DNAelectrotransfer for gene therapy. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1523,73–83
18 Dymek, M. et al. (2015) Modeling electroporation of the non-treatedand vacuum impregnated heterogeneous tissue of spinach leaves.Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 29, 55–64
19 Pavliha, D. et al. (2013) Planning of electroporation-based treatmentsusing web-based treatment-planning software. J. Membr. Biol. 246,833–842
20 Kranjc, M. et al. (2014) Magnetic resonance electrical impedancetomography for measuring electrical conductivity duringelectroporation. Physiol. Meas. 35, 985–996
21 Cukjati, D. et al. (2007) Real time electroporation control for accurateand safe in vivo non-viral gene therapy. Bioelectrochemistry 70,501–507
22 Aune, T.E.V. and Aachmann, F.L. (2010) Methodologies to increase thetransformation efficiencies and the range of bacteria that can betransformed. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 85, 1301–1313
23 Lucas, S. et al. (2002) Construction of a shuttle vector for, andspheroplast transformation of, the hyperthermophilic archaeonPyrococcus abyssi. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 68, 5528–5536
24 Polak, A. et al. (2014) Electroporation of archaeal lipid membranesusing MD simulations. Bioelectrochemistry 100, 18–26
25 Panov, P.V. et al. (2014) Isoprenoid lipid chains increase membraneresistance to pore formation. Biochem. (Moscow) Membr. Cell Biol. 8(Suppl. A), 304–308
26 Faber, K.N. et al. (1995) Review: methylotrophic yeasts as factories forproduction of foreign proteins. Yeast 11, 1331–1344
27 Brim, H. et al. (2003) Engineering Deinococcus geothermalis forbioremediation of high-temperature radioactive waste environments.Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69, 4575–4582
28 Li, C. et al. (2000) The spirochete FlaA periplasmic flagellar sheathprotein impacts flagellar helicity. J. Bacteriol. 182, 6698–6706
Review Trends in Biotechnology August 2015, Vol. 33, No. 8
29 Miller, J.F. (1994) Bacterial transformation by electroporation. MethodEnzymol. 235, 375–385
30 Fournet-Fayard, S. et al. (1995) Transformation of wild type Klebsiellapneumoniae with plasmid DNA by electroporation. J. Microbiol. Meth.24, 49–54
31 Dzul, S.P. et al. (2011) Contribution of the Klebsiella pneumoniaecapsule to bacterial aggregate and biofilm microstructures. Appl.Environ. Microbiol. 77, 1777–1782
32 Kimoto, H. and Taketo, A. (1996) Studies on electrotransfer of DNAinto Escherichia coli: effect of molecular form of DNA. Biochim.Biophys. Acta 1307, 325–330
33 Dower, W.J. et al. (1988) High efficiency transformation of E. coli byhigh voltage electroporation. Nucleic Acids Res. 16, 6127–6145
34 Xie, T.D. et al. (1990) Study of mechanisms of electric field-inducedDNA transfection. I. DNA entry by surface binding and diffusionthrough membrane pores. Biophys. J. 58, 13–19
35 Antonov, P. et al. (1993) Heat-shock and osmotically dependent stepsby DNA uptake after Escherichia coli electroporation. Biochim.Biophys. Acta 1216, 286–288
36 Meddeb-Mouelhi, F. et al. (2012) High transformation efficiency ofBacillus subtilis with integrative DNA using glycine betaine asosmoprotectant. Anal. Biochem. 424, 127–129
37 Thompson, J.R. et al. (1998) An improved protocol for thepreparation of yeast cells for transformation by electroporation.Yeast 14, 565–571
38 Suga, M. and Hatekayama, T. (2001) High efficiency transformation ofSchizosaccharomyces pombe pretreated with thiol compounds byelectroporation. Yeast 18, 1015–1021
39 Saldana, G. et al. (2014) Microbiological aspects related to thefeasibility of PEF technology for food pasteurization. Crit. Rev. FoodSci. Nutr. 54, 1415–1426
40 World Health Organization (2014) Antimicrobial Resistance: GlobalReport on Surveillance, World Health Organization
41 Rieder, A. et al. (2008) Molecular monitoring of inactivation efficienciesof bacteria during pulsed electric field treatment of clinical wastewater.J. Appl. Microbiol. 105, 2035–2045
42 Gusbeth, C. et al. (2009) Critical comparison between the pulsedelectric field and thermal decontamination methods of hospitalwastewater. Acta Phys. Pol. A 115, 1092–1094
43 Gusbeth, C. et al. (2009) Pulsed electric field treatment for bacteriareduction and its impact on hospital wastewater. Chemosphere 75,228–233
44 Mahnic-Kalamiza, S. and Vorobiev, E. (2014) Electroporation in foodprocessing and biorefinery. J. Membr. Biol. 247, 1279–1304
45 Alvarez, I. et al. (2006) Microbial inactivation by pulsed electric fields.In Pulsed Electric Fields Technology for the Food Industry (Raso, J. andHeinz, V., eds), pp. 97–129, Springer
46 Toepfl, S. (2011) Pulsed electric field food treatment: scale up from labto industrial scale. Proc. Food Sci. 1, 776–779
47 Saulis, G. (2010) Electroporation of cell membranes: the fundamentaleffects of pulsed electric fields in food processing. Food Eng. Rev. 2,52–73
48 Rebersek, M. et al. (2015) Generator and setup for emulating exposuresof biological samples to lightning strokes. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng.62,Published online May 25, 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TBME.2015.2437359
49 Gao, Y. et al. (2013) Inducible cell lysis systems in microbial productionof bio-based chemicals. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 97, 7121–7129
50 Summers, D. and Withers, H. (1990) Electrotransfer – direct transfer ofbacterial plasmid DNA by electroporation. Nucleic Acids Res. 18, 2192
51 Kilbane, J.J. and Bielaga, B.A. (1991) Instantaneous gene transfer fromdonor to recipient microorganisms via electroporation. Biotechniques 10,354–365
52 Haberl, S. et al. (2013) Comparison of alkaline lysis withelectroextraction and optimization of electric pulses to extractplasmid DNA from Escherichia coli. J. Membr. Biol. 246, 861–867
53 Ohshima, T. et al. (2000) Releasing profiles of gene products fromrecombinant Escherichia coli in a high-voltage pulsed electric field.Biochem. Eng. J. 5, 149–155
54 Sheng, J. et al. (2012) Disruption of Synechocystis PCC 6803 for lipidextraction. Water Sci. Technol. 65, 567–573
55 Vanthoor-Koopmans, M. et al. (2013) Biorefinery of microalgae for foodand fuel. Bioresour. Technol. 135, 142–149
56 Zbinden, M.D. et al. (2013) Pulsed electric field (PEF) as anintensification pretreatment for greener solvent lipid extractionfrom microalgae. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 110, 1605–1615
57 Eing, C. et al. (2013) Pulsed electric field treatment of microalgae –benefits for microalgae biomass processing. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci.41, 2901–2907
58 Flisar, K. et al. (2014) Testing a prototype pulse generator for acontinuous flow system and its use for E. coli inactivation andmicroalgae lipid extraction. Bioelectrochemistry 100, 44–51
59 Goettel, M. et al. (2013) Pulsed electric field assisted extraction ofintracellular valuables from microalgae. Algal Res. 2, 401–408
60 Greenwell, H.C. et al. (2010) Placing microalgae on the biofuels prioritylist: a review of the technological challenges. J. R. Soc. Interface 7,703–726
61 Wijffels, R.H. et al. (2010) Microalgae for the production of bulkchemicals and biofuels. Biofuel. Bioprod. Bioref. 4, 287–295
62 Schenk, P.M. et al. (2008) Second generation biofuels: high-efficiencymicroalgae for biodiesel production. Bioenerg. Res. 1, 20–43
63 Norsker, N.H. et al. (2011) Microalgal production – a close look at theeconomics. Biotechnol. Adv. 29, 24–27
64 De Boer, K. et al. (2012) Extraction and conversion pathways formicroalgae to biodiesel: a review focused on energy consumption. J.Appl. Phycol. 24, 1681–1698
65 Bahi, M.M. et al. (2011) Electroporation and lysis of marine microalgaKarenia brevis for RNA extraction and amplification. J. R. Soc.Interface 8, 601–608
66 Coustets, M. et al. (2013) Flow process for electroextraction of totalproteins from microalgae. J. Membr. Biol. 246, 751–760
67 Luengo, E. et al. (2014) Effect of pulsed electric field treatments onpermeabilization and extraction of pigments from Chlorella vulgaris. J.Membr. Biol. 247, 1269–1277
68 Marcil, R. and Higgins, D.R. (1992) Direct transfer of plasmid DNAfrom yeast to E. coli by electroporation. Nucleic Acids Res. 20, 917
69 Ganeva, V. and Galutzov, B. (1999) Electropulsation as an alternativemethod for protein extraction from yeast. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 174,279–284
70 Suga, M. and Hatakeyama, T. (2009) Gene transfer and protein releaseof fission yeast by application of a high voltage electric pulse. Anal.Bioanal. Chem. 394, 13–16
71 Ganeva, V. et al. (2013) Evidence that pulsed electric field treatmentenhances the cell wall porosity of yeast cells. Appl. Biochem.Biotechnol. 172, 1540–1552
72 Sack, M. et al. (2010) Operation of an electroporation device for grapemash. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 38, 1928–1934
73 Puertolas, E. et al. (2010) Evolution of polyphenolic compounds in redwine from Cabernet Sauvignon grapes processed by pulsed electricfields during ageing in bottle. Food Chem. 119, 1063–1070
74 Sack, M. et al. (2010) Research on industrial-scale electroporationdevices fostering the extraction of substances from biological tissue.Food Eng. Rev. 2, 147–156
75 Sack, M. et al. (2009) Upgrade of the electroporation device KEA-MOBIL. Acta Phys. Pol. A 115, 1081–1083 Accessible at:przyrbwn.icm.edu.pl/APP/PDF/115/a115z643.pdf
76 Sack, M. et al. (2008) Electroporation-assisted dewatering as analternative method for drying plants. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 36,2577–2585 http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/TPS.2008.2002440
77 Fox, M.B. et al. (2006) Electroporation of cells in microfluidic devices.Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 385, 474–485
78 Geng, T. and Lu, C. (2013) Microfluidic electroporation for cellularanalysis and delivery. Lab Chip 13, 3808–3821
79 Cemazar, J. et al. (2013) Microfluidic devices for manipulation,modification and characterization of biological cells in electric fields– a review. Inform. MIDEM 43, 143–161
80 Church, C. et al. (2010) Integrated electrical concentration and lysis ofcells in a microfluidic chip. Biomicrofluidics 4, 44101
81 Cemazar, J. and Kotnik, T. (2012) Dielectrophoretic field-flowfractionation of electroporated cells. Electrophoresis 33, 2867–2874
82 Scott Mellors, J. et al. (2010) Integrated microfluidic device forautomated single cell analysis using electrophoretic separation andelectrospray ionization mass spectrometry. Anal. Chem. 82, 967–973
83 Qu, B. et al. (2012) Droplet electroporation in microfluidics for efficientcell transformation with or without cell wall removal. Lab Chip 12,4483–4488
487
Review Trends in Biotechnology August 2015, Vol. 33, No. 8
84 Meneses, N. et al. (2011) Impact of insulator shape, flow rate andelectrical parameters on inactivation of E. coli using a continuousco-linear PEF system. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 12,6–12
85 Redondo, L.M. et al. (2009) Generalized solid-state Marx modulatortopology. IEEE Trans. Dielect. El. Insul. 16, 1037–1042
86 Sack, M. et al. (2013) Design considerations for a fast stacked-MOSFETswitch. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 41, 2630–2636
87 Frey, W. et al. (2009) Gas-insulated self-breakdown spark gaps: aspectson low-scattering and long-lifetime switching. Acta Phys. Pol. A 115,1016–1018
88 Sack, M. and Mu ller, G. (2012) Modular trigger generator for anover-voltage triggered Marx generator. IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. 40,2618–2624
89 Sack, M. et al. (2005) Triggered Marx generators for the industrial-scale electroporation of sugar beets. IEEE Trans. Indust. Appl. 41,725–733
488
90 Rebersek, M. et al. (2014) Cell membrane electroporation. Part 3. Theequipment. IEEE Electr. Insul. Mag. 30, 8–18
91 Bazhal, M. et al. (2003) Optimisation of pulsed electric field strength forelectroplasmolysis of vegetable tissues. Biosyst. Eng. 86, 339–345
92 Sack, M. and Bluhm, H. (2008) New measurement methods for anindustrial scale electroporation faciltity for sugar beets. IEEE Trans.Indust. Appl. 44, 1074–1083
93 Pliquett, U. (2010) Bioimpedance: a review for food processing. FoodEng. Rev. 2, 74–94
94 Pavlin, M. et al. (2005) Effect of cell electroporation on the conductivityof a cell suspension. Biophys. J. 88, 4378–4390
95 Jaeger, H. et al. (2012) Adjustment of milling, mash electroporationand pressing for the development of a PEF assisted juice production inindustrial scale. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 14, 46–60
96 Mahnic-Kalamiza, S. et al. (2014) Dual-porosity model of solutediffusion in biological tissue modified by electroporation. Biochim.Biophys. Acta 1838, 1950–1966